The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. THURSDAY, JUNE 24, 1909. WHY GERMANY WINS.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2536, 24 June 1909, Page 4

The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. THURSDAY, JUNE 24, 1909. WHY GERMANY WINS.

In considering the position that has been taken by Germany in recent years it is not out of place to investigate the Socialistic standpoint and this was recently put very forcibly by R. 13. ’Suthers in the pages,of “The Clarion.” The writer commences by pooh-poohing the popular belief that it is the protective tariff which has given Germany .such a tremendous impetus in commercial progress. Ho then claims an advantage for tho Germans in the way they have dealt with the land problem. He accuses the British Government of trifling with tho subject of how to place the people on the land, and says: Quite recently the Liberals have tried their hand at restoring people | to the land. They passed their Act over twelve months ago, and applications for holdings wore received in 190 S from 19,000 persons. H.ow( many of those 19,000 have got their holdings? The- meagrest ' fraction, and nearly all over’ tho country the cry has gone up that the Act is practically a dead letter. For this state of affairs Mr Suthers blames the ruling, classes, who ho declares- object to the cutting up or the estates and whom he stigmatises as l‘.selfish, short-sighted, and .unpatriotic.” He then turns to Germany and says: Prussia passed Small Holding Acts in 1890 and 1891, and under those Acts the State had purchased, up to 1905, 672,682 acres, of which 315,920 acres had been allotted to 10,963 holders. Compare those figures with tlie paltry results of our own Small Holding Acts, and remember that in Germany rural depopulation lias not advanced nearly so far proportionately as in this country,, There are nearly 31 million farms under five acres in Germany, In educational matters Mr Suthers ; declares that the, English elementary system is a by-word and a reproach,, whereas Germany’s progress is largely due to her festering of the desire for knowledge in the young, and to her splendid equipment of. schools and technical institutes. Ho adds: ‘‘At this very moment London, cannot pro- - vido school places for all it® children. Not cannot, Will not. Why not? Because London is ruled by a crowd of ;■ save tho pockets of the rich, starve the ' children, and starve tho schools' * ‘patriots,” who will call upon the electors to ‘.Look at Germany,” meaning Germany’s protective many’s State railways, not Germany’s State forests and farms, not Germany’s State mines, not Germany’s State breweries, not Germany’s municipal land, not Germany’s efficient schools. N-o. None of tho German institutions which tend to the elevation of tho people are mentioned by our patriots.” Tho writer proceeds: —“Germany's infantilo mortality is enormous. She has only just begun to tackle the evil. But Germany takes care of her children if they survive to school ago.’ Do we? “Think of our hundreds of thousands of child workers, street, hawkers, and newspaper sellers-. Think ol our hundreds of thousands, of under-fed school children with their defective eyesight and hearing, their nose and throat diseases. “In most of the largo towns of Germany the scholars receive free modieai care at vfclfo hands of school duetois. Many towjb hare established dental

surgeries, and engaged eye and ear specialists. We—we publish Blue Books. “Germany realises more and more the folly of employing children at a too tender ago. Our half-timers are increasing. In 1903-4 we had 78,8/6 half-timers. In 1905-6 we had 82,328. “Out of 5,607,657 German industrial workers inspected in 1905 only 10,245 were undor 14 years of age. In 1875 there were 88,000 out of 880,500. Germany moves in the right direction. “Competent observers agree that the' general environment of German workshops and factories is superior to our owh. In air, light, sanitation, and provision for the health and comfort of tho workpeople we are a long way behind. It may bo true that British workmen have an invincible repugnance to washing themselves and changing their clothes in the factory or mine. But this defect is mainly a question of education and habit. If cleanliness were taught in the schools, if bathing facilities were provided in tho homes of the people, if the advantages of neatness and order were inculcated in oarly life, our people would soon lead the nations in health and efficiency. Wo could do it easily and soon —if our rich patriots wore men. It will, perhaps, take longer to educate from the bottom upwards, but it will have, to bo done. “Dreadnoughts” do not remove dirt and disease. Another instance of Germany’s care for bor workers is her system of Old Ago and Sickness and Accident Insurance. We are following slowly in her wake. We have had accident insurance for a few years, wo havo no compulsory sickness scheme, and wo havo only just begun with Old Age. Pensions.” After referring to tho outcry of British statesmen for more Dreadnoughts the writer concludes: “When I hear tho Right Honorable patriots asking for two schools to Germany’s ono, for two healthy children to Germany’s one, for two parks to Germany’s one, for two factories without women and children to Germany’s ono, for two libraries to Germany’s one, for two Garden Cities to Germany’s one, then I shall begin to listen with respect to their demand for two “Dreadnoughts” to Germany’s one. Such a demand alone is not a sign of strength or patriotism. It is a sign of imbecility.” Mr Suthers’ article is, of course, written from the standpoint of an ardent Socialist, but at the same time it contains food for earnest thought. Dreadnoughts are tho urgent necessity of the. moment, but if England and the Empire as a whole are to maintain a position of supremacy it can only be attained by a whole-hearted endeavor being made to improve the social conditions of the. masses of the people.